Uncategorized —

Bipartisan network neutrality bill introduced in Senate

A Republican and a Democrat have joined forces to reintroduce their 2006 …

It didn't take long for network neutrality to reappear before Congress. Only days into the new session, two sentors have teamed up to re-introduce net neutrality legislation that failed to get a hearing last year, and the bill is already sparking very public debate.

Known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S.215), the bill would require network operators to run their network in a "nondiscriminatory manner"—certain types of traffic or traffic from certain sources could not be hampered or prioritized, but operators would still be free to offer different tiers of service. The bill would also require broadband operators to offer "naked" DSL and cable modem service that does not require the purchase of other services.

The bill has a pair of bipartisan sponsors, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), but the six co-sponsors are all Democrats. While the same bill was introduced last year, Senate leaders did not allow it to come to a vote. With new leadership in place, the two senators hoped to make more progress with the legislation this year. And, just as net neutrality supporters predicted, AT&T's concessions to the FCC are already playing a role in the debate.

"The tide has turned in the debate between those who seek to maintain equality and those who would benefit from the creation of a toll road on the Internet super highway," said Senator Snowe. "The reintroduction of this legislation and the FCC's imposition of net neutrality conditions as part of the AT&T-BellSouth merger, are significant victories in the fight to ensure nondiscrimination on the Internet, and I look forward to continuing that fight along side Senator Dorgan in the new Congress."

For his part, Dorgan took to YouTube to voice his support for the bill on behalf of savetheinternet.com. Net neutrality will ensure that everyone gets to ride on the high-tech Interstate, he said, not "a gravel road somewhere on the Internet."

Consumer groups also support the bill. Harold Feld, a vice president for the Media Access Project, said that "the Internet has become too important to allow the cable/telephone broadband duopoly to decide what people can say and what services they can use."

But not everyone is pleased

This is not a perspective shared by the companies that provide Internet access to consumers. USTelecom, a trade group representing telecommunications firms like AT&T, called the bill nothing less than a government attempt to regulate the Internet. And when the government starts regulating things, bad things start happening to grandma (and personal investments, leisure time, and the ability to work at home).

Regulation "would mean all of us losing advances in home health monitoring, greater security of our financial transactions, new entertainment choices and telecommuting opportunities," said Walter B. McCormick Jr., President and CEO of USTelecom. Instead, McCormick argues that the government should focus on expanding broadband deployment to reach more Americans. To his group, network neutrality sounds more like a government attempt to end Internet innovation.

No one's "neutral" about network neutrality, which probably ensures months of contentious debate and lengthy hearings about the pros and cons of the Snowe/Dorgan plan—but that's as it should be for controversial issues of national importance. It should be clear within a few months whether Dorgan and Snowe can use their positions on the Senate commerce committee to move this bill forward or whether it will die another unceremonious death. If they can push the bill through, the House will also need to take action, though well-known neutrality supporters like Ed Markey (D-MA) will certainly be pushing the issue hard on the other side of the Capitol.